What is that Film "Look"? - Film Photography 

Thanks for sharing Todd, Very Informative. Of course, I take pictures with my trombone. Keep sharing because the world needs what you have to offer.

Well, it’s not fair for me to tell you if I could tell the difference because I have traveled this road with you and I KNOW which ones were which. I will say that you did a great job at disguising your digital stuff. Your awesome and I love that I have this history with you!! Your loving wife

I mostly shoot film (medium and large format, not much 35mm) and for me it's not about the "look" but more about the process. My life is fast paced and full of technology. When I travel I try to slow down and expose a few frames of film because for me it's my meditation. I usually end up shooting a few digital shots as backup, but I do all my calculations via the light meter and film iso. I always felt digital photography just got too easy and the equipment got too complicated.

It’s always interesting to me when people talk about “the” film look, when many film stocks look totally different from one another.

Honestly I didn't catch on the fact that film/digital were swapped, but I did think that the grain (that now I know was applied in post) was a bit too much. In my head, I thought I would neved shoot a film that is that grainy so it wasn't appealing to me as certain film stocks typically are. For me the equipment is not the main reason to shoot film, in fact if I could run film through my mirrorless to get the look out of camera without the challenges of old film camera I would try it for sure. I do appreciate those challenges but they are not everything. What I do appreciate is the color pallette and the way the highlights are rendered as well as the cool tone to the shadows (at least the stocks I've been shooting). Can I reproduce the same look on digital? I don't do it very often, but I can get pretty close to it in my eyes, BUT I like to know that I can never reproduce it exactly and that if I wanted to I should just shoot film instead. I don't shoot film professionally so to me it's a nice treat that involves the whole process (tactile experience, not being able to check the image, having to wait to develop, etc...) not the imperfections of the equipment. When I say film look vs digital, I don't think of any film stock in particular. I just refer to the fact that is a distinct and recognizable color pallette (and other features) that are baked into all the photos out of the lab. On the other hand RAW digital photos have a neutral look. I like that concept in general more than the fact the I like certain film stocks better than others. Thanks for your video!

I was half-expecting a "gotcha" after the images where shown where you'd say "well achtualllley they are all digital and I just added a filter". Though seriously, I think "film look" = slightly soft image with grain and a yellowish tint. I also like a vintage-esque look but just use a mirorless+vintage lens EDIT: Waaait I just reached 8:20 I was friggin riightt!!!!!!

Film has infinite possibilities between the head and toe of the response curve. Digital has specific integers for each of the potential values on the same curve. Infinitely variable is always more organic than absolute values. Me being an animate object in space time, I tend to value processes that are more organic as they allow for easier reproduction of the creative essence when capturing an image. Film has objectively more possibilities and that’s why I choose it.

Shooting film today as an amateur/enthusiast is probably pretty expensive. But, like you said, everyone is looking for that "cinematic look". Is it analogous to someone who prefers driving classic cars that must be manual transmission? Nostalgia will never go away. I think we're riding a nostalgia wave right now in photography/videography. Who knows how long it will last!

I shoot primarily digital, but sometimes film, and because I use modern bodies (F5 and F100) with modern lenses that have VR, and then flip the script and use really old lenses on a Df and D850, I can get some interesting results. The film, "Look," to me mostly comes down to either the exposure latitude using some color negative stocks where I can't really blow out a highlight, a handy feature of something like Portra, and the grain appearance of certain stocks like Tri-X. While shooting slides is fun, they look about 90% like digital - the main difference being that a sensor is perfectly flat and film isn't, with each layer focusing slightly off in the emulsion. Certainly the biggest part of it for me though is going somewhere and only having 36 or 72 exposures, something my Z8 can burn in a few seconds, and having to be slow an deliberate with my shooting. As for telling your images apart - no, but I'm looking at a RU-vid video not something off of a CoolScan :)